I challenge all "top-experts" from the list of HL

[Lusenrad]

If you are saying that at no fs "the winner is the one who can go longer without making a mistake". Ok then that means you must be very close to perfection to achieve a victory and at no fire only you can commit mistakes all the time because it's a stupid and shit game and even an idiot can play on it. lol
And yeah you are right. That day i was pretty tired because i slept only 4 hours so i couldn't think well and I commited like 100 mistakes.
And don't talk about excuses. You are the first one to make an excuse everytime you lose. If you think I am wrong ok then take a look to this link when you posted such a big and stupid topic complaining about massive cats and monks.

http://the-best-of-crusader.4467478.n2.nabble.com/Mass-Cats-and-Monks-The-Truth-td5996722.html

dingo you complain about no fs because of mass ha and also complain about no fire only because of mass cats and monks haha you are making yourself to look like a clown lol

[Lusenrad]

I don't understand are you talking about this ss?

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/716/akaowned.jpg/

[[>D-F<]~Dingo~]

well lusenrad you are very noobish so probably you don't understand. In flying stone if you make many mistakes and you still win then that is because your opponent sucks even more than you. Which, that is probably really rare for you, to find someone who sucks more than you in fs. In fs games more micromanagement is required, and in some cases, it can be very fast, with many things going on in many different places. No fs isn't, and pretty much can't be like that.

As for you talking about me making excuses, you said an excuse 1 sentence before you wrote "Don't talk about excuses". I think how little you think is funny.

& me hating on the mass cat/monk, you can talk shit about that if you like, but a noob like you doesn't understand the game enough and couldn't understand what I mean.

[MAX POWER]

no f >  no f fs. why ? less limits = more units to take care.

[[>D-F<]~Dingo~]

flying stone adds a new aspect to the game, but the rest of the game is still there. In no fs you are just taking a big part of the game out, and just playing with whats left, so you are limiting the game...

[Lusenrad]

lol You really don't know what to say.
Seems you have a personal trouble with no fs.
No fs it is not harder game than fs and fs it is not harder game than no fs. If fs is harder than no fs, it should be very very easy for an fs player to beat a no fs player and it isn't like that.
The truth is that both rules are really different and of course practice and experience are needed which i don't have at fs because i haven't played. If I decide to start playing fs i will be good and probably even better than you.
I have played you many times and from what i saw i can say you are not the best player. I have seen many players like you or even much better. Anyone with normal IQ and a good training can defeat you. Also i have seen many ss of medium players owning you. Even i defeated you when i was learning the -24 tax trick and how to group troops lol
If you are talking about limits ok then no fire only limitates the game too because we can't use fire. And fire changes the game a lot too.

[MAX POWER]

didnt look very competence because talked against dingo. anyway, ill add some thinkings. no fire requires  more skills.  more frequent occasion that no fs player suck at no f more than  no f player sucks at no f fs. playing no fire requires more movement, more groups to take control = more difficult.  about  the sentence "it should be very very easy for an fs player to beat a no fs player and it isn't like that. ". no fs requires less movement,  ok you can turn around  change  your direction each second, but one of the main guns in no fs  is arrows, so you  only lose with moving too much. changing direction makes ha to reload a bow again. so finally  game  goes as a shield war, or possible to show better economy and better   ground  warriors controlling skills.  for medium expert it shouldnt be difficult to control  like  4 groups of ground units. so i think strong player cannot use his army controlling skills. of course expert , as being better  can take  little advantage of it, and  after  some battle you have 20 units more and opponent goes back.  it turns out that you  will have to waste 2h for  the win. so in my opinion, no f is a better rule  .
  about no fire, its for sure what you say, just nobody plays it. why its like that? i dont know, majority has decided probably. but nobody said that no fire is the best rule. probably no rules could be the most  complicated rule.  
its a discussion, so lets argue friendly.

[Keks]

SOrry but no ss. Dingo refused playing no fs

[oneOfMany-2]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[Fena]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[[>D-F<]~Dingo~]

Of course I know how to play in NO fs. You're seriously trying to say I can't? All I have to do is make a serious attempt to make a strong eco and I can beat any of you guys. Feanor you think you can make a better eco than me? Keks I already saw your eco, I almost left during pt because I thought I was playing a total noob. Actually I was playing a total noob... Owning you 1v1 was easier than sex with your mom.